LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

John Holabird Jr.'s article about Soldier Field has one major flaw: He makes the recommendation to remove Soldier Field from the lakefront without having seen our plans for the new facility ("Should Soldier Field be saved? The answer is no," Aug. 30).

I agreed to help the Bears develop a new stadium at Soldier Field because I am convinced it can be done without destroying the historic quality of the old, without damage to our lakefront park system and without detriment to the Museum Campus.

I participate in this planning project precisely because I have become convinced that it can be a major improvement in every respect. True, Soldier Field was not conceived as a football stadium, but it was also never meant to be what it is today: a third-rate facility that satisfies neither the original purposes nor today's expectations of a good stadium.

Recent innovations in stadium design and operation have made it possible to develop a cross section, which is narrower than any presently existing examples. As a result, it became possible to fit an entire new stadium inside the existing perimeter and between the magnificent colonnades. It is this feature of the narrower east-west dimension that allows us to have an uncompromised stadium and retain the cherished and landmarked exterior of Soldier Field.

Perhaps more important than the stadium itself is its impact on its neighborhood. The museums have always suffered on game days, when the parks become giant parking lots and prevent museum visitors from reaching their destination.

We are acutely aware of this problem and have recommended significant improvements in traffic, year-around parking (benefiting the museums) and increased parkland. All of these modifications are, by their very nature, civic amenities, not for the Bears but for all visitors to this actively used area on Chicago's lakefront.

The plans for the new Soldier Field cannot be revealed until there is a "handshake" understanding of the financial arrangement. Until then, one must be patient and not make the mistake of rejecting something one has not seen. When the time comes to present our thinking, I will make sure John Holabird gets an invitation to study the plans with the hope that they will change his mind.

Dirk Lohan

President

Lohan Associates

Chicago

PLANS MUST CHANGE

Your article of Aug. 9 fails to credit the new Managed Care Reform and Patient Rights Act for elevating the standards by which these plans must operate ("Ill winds over health care plan," Crain's Small Business).

Scott Wayne of William M. Mercer Inc. was on the money when he said that HMOs are looking for an excuse to raise costs. Prior to the passage of this legislation, plans were already required to provide enrollees with details of their coverage. Many plans already had an external appeals process in place. The new law simply mandates that HMOs provide standardized information and a proper means of appeal.

Don't patients deserve this? We don't think this is asking too much, nor do we believe costs will change dramatically.

Plans are now also responsible for determining price and access for prescription medications. Under the act, each plan will still draft its own basic contract, setting its own terms, including payment rates, by which a pharmacy can become part of its drug dispensing network.

The Managed Care Reform and Patients Rights Act elevates the standard of care provided to our patients. Those plans that already put the patient first will continue to thrive. Those that don't will now have to change their ways.

Clair M. Callan

President

Illinois State Medical Society

NOTHING GOOD?

I agree completely with Jeanne Frederick in her remarks about the consistently negative and caustic reviews from the pen of Anne Spiselman ("Enough of Spiselman's 'venom'; cancel my subscription," Letters to the Editor, Aug. 23).

Chicago is a very highly regarded destination for travelers on business or pleasure because of the many fine choices available for dining. It mystifies me that Ms. Spiselman cannot seem to find much at all good to say about the state of dining here.

She's entitled to her opinion, and that's all it is . . . yet nowhere else in Crain's pages do I see the level of antagonism as is a regular part of her columns.

Robert T. O'Neil

Downers Grove

Crain's Chicago Business welcomes responses from readers. Letters should be as brief as possible and may be edited. They should be sent to Letters to the Editor, Crain's Chicago Business, 740 N. Rush St., Chicago, Ill. 60611. All letters must be signed. Please include a telephone number. You may also send letters to Crain's via e-mail at [email protected] Past articles can be retrieved via our Web site, www.crainschicagobusiness.com.